Category: Biblical authority


Go ! Be the Church!! ALL of Us!

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, General Convention, Musings by wfloyd — 1 Comment
September 25, 2007

‘Being the Church’ should take our breath away. The very images we use are graphic: we are ‘grafted on’ to the vine that is Jesus — we are the very Body of Christ.

Then, unfortunately, these days, come the asterisks. Yes, but ….

It is a good thing that the House of Bishops affirmed in their final statement from their just-concluded meeting in New Orleans their “commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them,encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God.”

And who can argue with their strong affirmation, saying: “We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.”

But, then, the asterisks …

They continue to hold to the lamentable last-ditch language of Resolution B033, from the last General Convention, agreeing “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” And then they now add: “The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B 033 pertains.”

It appears as though the Bishops are ready not only to refuse to consent to the legitimate election of a non-celibate gay or lesbian Bishop – including, potentially, Tracey Lind, Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Cleveland, OH, who has been nominated to be Bishop of Chicago — but to continue to blame it on her “manner of life” (wink, wink) because it “presents a challenge to the wider church”. People wept openly at General Convention when this language was pushed through at the last moment in the summer of 2006 – don’t the Bishops remember?!

And they “pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action.” Some may feel off the hook by pointing out that no public rites have been authorized for use in any dioceses, and so perhaps use of ‘unauthorized’ rites will pass muster (wink, wink).

As I see it, either all baptized Christians are a full part of the Body of Christ or we aren’t – ANY of us! And if we are, then we’re not just eligible to be called by God to serve the Church as the Church discerns is the most faithful use of our gifts. It’s incumbent up us all that when called we say yes, even if that works out as gay=Bishop.

We can’t be about the business of saying “Welcome to the Body of Christ! But just because you’re a lung, don’t expect to go about breathing around here!” Every part of the Body is essential. Essential, not just ‘eligible’ for participation.

In my parish, our gay asst. rector and straight rector — who happens to be my spouse — made the same promise to their Bishops when they were asked: “Will you do your best to pattern your life in accordance with the teachings of Christ so that you may be a wholesome example to your people?”

What matters most in “the teachings of Christ,” Jesus himself told us, is to love God and our neighbor as ourselves. To do our best to pattern our life on that teaching — not our sexual orientation, which Jesus never talked about at all – is what makes any one of us a wholesome example to anyone else — and fit for any role to which the church legitimately calls us.

It appears to have been Rowan Williams who planted the idea at the House of Bishops meetings that, in his words, “one can say you accept gay and lesbian persons as the Body of Christ and turn right around and raise questions about their eligibility for active roles in the Church.” And so they did. Turn right around.

But in my parish — which happens to be more than 60% gay and lesbian — we are way beyond ‘acceptance’ or ‘tolerance’ or even ‘inclusion’ of gays and lesbians. We actually believe that when God’s table — and as a result, Christ’s Church — is open to all, one can actually get a glimpse here of the Reign of God breaking in. And either we ALL are essential to the Body of Christ, OR NONE OF US ARE!

We really believe we all are called as a community to be Christ’s Body — fully, however God and the Church call us to make that manifest. So the most hopeful thing to say here, despite deep sadness at yet one more exhibition of a willingness to buy unity at the price of love and justice to gays and lesbians, is just this — and I say it to ALL of us Episcopalians, straight and gay. Our Bishops have spoken. Now so should we. “Go! Be the Church!” It’s who we are. All, or none.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comment

Arise, shine, your light has come

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Epiphany, Kairos, Musings, Time by wfloyd — Leave a comment
August 20, 2007

Luke 12:49-56

49“I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already
kindled! 50I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress
I am under until it is completed! 51Do you think that I have come to
bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52From
now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two
against three; 53they will be divided: father against son and son
against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother,
mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against
mother-in-law.”

54He also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west,
you immediately say, ‘It is going to rain’; and so it happens. 55And
when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching
heat’; and it happens. 56You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the
appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret
the present time.”

You, I, and the entire Church have attempted in every age to make
of Jesus the most comfortable figure that we are able to conjure up.
That image rarely coincides with the full Gospel portrayal of the Son
of God who was sent to set the world on fire and to make peace by
clearing away all that which might impair our vision of him and all
which may impede the power of the Holy Spirit with which he endows us.
We have often so watered down the radical, life-transforming message of
the Gospel that we have lost sight of what God is seeking to do through
the Church and in our lives for the salvation of his creation. Like
the author of the letter to the Hebrews said, “Our God is a consuming
fire.”

The image of fire is the symbol of God’s holy activity. It is the
symbol of his powerful, all-consuming entry into his created order; it
is the evidence of God’s will breaking into the priorities of the
world; and a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus came not
to anesthetize us into a complacent, passive contentment, but to call
us into radical commitment. He came to make a difference and to change
our lives. He came to conquer evil and to break us out of the prisons
of self and society. Jesus came to bring fire to the earth to separate
us from our idols and false gods so that we might discover the only
true God and our true selves. Fire is power and energy. Fire is the
light of the Gospel. Fire is God with us who transforms our life by
the gift of the Holy Spirit.?

Donald Krickbaum, Dean Emeritus, Trinity Cathedral, Miami

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comment

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Epiphany, Kairos, Musings, Time by wfloyd — Leave a comment
August 1, 2007

When my third wristwatch in 6 months died a while back, I quit wearing one altogether. No, this isn’t a reflection on being liberated from the tyranny of time-keeping. In fact, I simply realized that my cell-phone worked as a techy little pocket watch, which I’ve learned to check at least as discretely as I ever could sneak peeks at my wrist during conversations and meetings.

This is what first came to mind when I listened to David Tiede, the President Emeritus of Luther Seminary, recently working with a group that was groping towards some serious strategic planning. Given that it was an organization that caters specifically to religious groups, David obviously felt it not inappropriate, even surrounded by corporate execs and other “professional leaders” in their fields, to open up his well-thumbed New Testament, and in a way that no member of my religious tribe, the Episcopalians, can every do, to read us his own favorite biblical text about strategic planning from the Gospel of Matthew:

“The Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus* they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, ‘When it is evening, you say, “It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.” And in the morning, “It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.” You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.* An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.’ Then he left them and went away.”

The most important thing about planning, he was telling us, is to be able to discern God’s movement in the world about us — to be as wise at reading the signs of God’s presence and work in the world as we are at reading market indicators and planning marketing strategies. I thought of the quirky pop-song lyrics by the 1970s rock group, Chicago: “Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?” And given the vagaries of middle-aged memory, one lyric was followed by another, this time Bob Dylan’s words of advice to my parents’ generation about the world we, their children, now inhabited as teenagers: “The times, they are a changin’.”

Every generation thinks, I suppose, that the changes in it’s moment in time are the changes that really matter or will endure. Leaving aside the part about “the sign of Johah,” I don’t think David Tiede was asking us a scary, apocalyptic, fundamentalist question like, “is the end at hand?!” (Although even rational Episcopalians can’t be faulted for wondering that question at least twice a day most weeks!) Rather he was reminding us that change happens, over and over, and when it happens, wisdom comes in knowing what needs to be made secure, and what needs to be put at risk.

What time is it? Tiede challenged us. Where is God moving, and where are people finding God and being found by God in these times, our times, the only times we’ve got? And what would it mean to plan my evening, or my day at work tomorrow, or the future of an organization, or the future of the world, by starting with the question, “Where is God in all this, right now, at this time, our time?” And in God’s eyes, what is it time that we do, as followers of Christ?

Does anybody really know what time it is? It seems to me this is a time when there are people who really care. But how do we discern “the signs of the times,” and how do we possibly claim to be able to identify God’s work, and to distinguish it from our own pretensions and claims of entitlement?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comment

USATODAY.COM – Even Some Baptists Get It …

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Future of the Church, Gender & Sexuality, News Reports by wfloyd — 1 Comment
November 21, 2006

When religion loses its credibility

By Oliver “Buzz” Thomas Mon Nov 20, 6:40 AM ET
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:

Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God’s followers.

Based on a few recent headlines, we won’t be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are “disordered” and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina’s Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we’re wrong?

Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

Answer in Scriptures

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

As a former “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here’s the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America’s loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you’ll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody’s standard of ethics. We lawyers call it “selective enforcement,” and in civil affairs it’s illegal.

A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. “And, the Lord saw that it was good.” If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?

Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it’s between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.

What would Jesus do?

For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. (“Judge not lest you be judged.” Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn’t visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you’re powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it’s likely to be.

Oliver “Buzz” Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job).

Comment

Returning to the King James Version

Filed Under: Biblical authority, Musings by wfloyd — Leave a comment
August 14, 2006

of the Bible is really not an option for me. Recently, however, I’ve been looking at what I realize is not a new book at all, but a three year old volume by Adam Nicolson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible.

It’s so far past its shelf-life that Amazon.com has 91 used and new copies starting at $5 (reminds me of when my first book was remaindered at the seminary bookstore, and then the final case was just given to me to get it out of the way … ouch!). Sometimes, though, I am so far behind with my reading that a book finds its place, not when it was published, but when it is needed. Reading Nicolson’s book right now strikes me as one such moment.

This book has had some staying power, perhaps because it takes something familiar to so many of us, the King James Version of the Bible, and shows it to us in an unexpected light.

Even this strategy was not a novelty limited to this book, I am told, the scholarship behind it having been spun and woven by others before. Nicolson, however, does a wonderful job of making the significance of that scholarship clear to a general audience, not just biblical scholars or church historians. He is after all a travel writer by trade, with a deft sense of place and history.

In a time in the church’s life when considerable bile is being spilled once again over the way we understand the authority of Holy Scripture, it is instructive to return to another age and see how this controversy has played itself out in times past, and what this may have to tell us about our own understanding of the Bible and its role in the affairs not just of the church, but of nations, as well.

As I understand the drama, when James I acceded to the throne of England in 1603, Elizabeth’s England was torn still by the controversies between the Anglicans and the Puritans, high church and low, anglo-Catholics and reforming-Calvinists. The vision of Elizabeth I of a catholic and protestant church that was neither Roman nor Genevan-Reformed existed more in desire than in fact, promise than in policy and polity.

So in 1604 King James (not God, I might add!) authorized a new English translation of the Bible, to be accomplished by about 50 scholars organized in six committees, each group appointed to translate a different part of the Hebrew and Greek originals.

Despite having been undertaken as a way of tossing a bone, so to speak, to the Puritans, who James I thought were the most dangerously divisive party, the makeup of the teams was actually designed to exclude Puritan radicalism in the final product. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that when it came into print in 1611, as Nicolson said in an interview, “It goes down like a lead balloon. They hated it.”

Most Puritans for quite some time stuck with an earlier Puritan-leaning translation, the Geneva Bible, which was the version taken to Plymouth by the Pilgrims who brought Calvinism to the New World.

Hidden in the usual theological renderings of the story, is what, however, intrigues Nicolson perhaps the most. As he said in another interview: “It’s a government project. … King James in the early 17th century wants a Bible that unifies the country. He wants a Bible that will appeal to everybody. And make him look good. Make kings look godly and gods look kingly. The whole thing is an elaborate exercise in one way of propaganda.”

Of course, even a quick reading of history reminds us that the English Civil War was just on the horizon, and James’ hope for a bible to unify a nation was in the near term a disaster.

What’s left me thinking, though, is Nicolson’s comment at the end of a “Think Tank” interview with Ben Wattenberg about the irony he sees in the KJV having become “the American Bible” – and perhaps especially the only “authorized” fundamentalist-Calvinist Bible as well, particularly in our own deeply divided time.

“…When the Pilgrim fathers come here they take with them not the King James Bible; they hated the King James Bible as a thing of kings and bishops and priests and ceremony and richness. They take the Geneva Bible with them and for the first maybe, what? fifty years of American history, the Geneva Bible is the American Bible.

And it is only at the end of the 17th century that Americans, like the English, start to turn to the King James Bible as a bible that is about nation-building.

…The Geneva Bible is the bible of the ardent, private, Puritan spirit, with a direct relation to God. Just me, God, and the bible.

And the King James Bible is about making a nation.

And that shift, which happens in England after the Civil War, happens in America towards the end of the 17th century, as that private, Puritan spirit in some ways starts to become less needed than the idea of building a nation.

And incredibly this … very un-American book becomes the great American book.

I think the King James Bible was intended as a thing, an instrument, almost a tool, to bring people together, to heal division, and to make a single nation under God. I think that was its purpose.

But all of these things that we’ve talking about, these divergent forces that James is trying to hold together in one fabric, broke apart and this thing is, in a way, the one thing that survives from his dream of a great, unified nation.”

Wouldn’t it be even more ironic if a rereading at least of the history of the King James Version contributed to the healing and unity of not just a church, but a nation — as we remember the mystery of this peculiar work of God’s people in committee, hammering out the eloquent poetry and prose capable of transcending division by bringing us out of our shells of individual entitlement into bonds of authentic affection, genuine community.

Comment
Powered by WordPress | Theme: Motion by 85ideas.